Let me, buches, explain you that only small part of geologists are hired by oil companies. Many more geologists work to explore metals and nonmetals, drinking and mineral water, for construction, and, bye the way, for environmental companies to keep our water and soil clear, They drill more than 1000 wells per one oil well. Investigating the composition of the Earth, they cannot hide the endless facts on past grandiose climate changes, dramatic variations in composition of the atmosphere, powerful natural forces, and catastrophic events occurred. Nobody knows why. Despite the fact, that the IPCC excluded geologic sources and entire geologic past from their so called models (you can see it, f...

Let me, buches, explain you that only small part of geologists are hired by oil companies. Many more geologists work to explore metals and nonmetals, drinking and mineral water, for construction, and, bye the way, for environmental companies to keep our water and soil clear, They drill more than 1000 wells per one oil well. Investigating the composition of the Earth, they cannot hide the endless facts on past grandiose climate changes, dramatic variations in composition of the atmosphere, powerful natural forces, and catastrophic events occurred. Nobody knows why. Despite the fact, that the IPCC excluded geologic sources and entire geologic past from their so called models (you can see it, for example, in their gas budgets), these sources still operates and change not only climate, but the lands and oceans. Maybe IPCC accounted for recent crustal movements to estimate see level rise? All they can do is to manipulate discrepant data with primitive statistic methodology.

You may be right, and perhaps the conflict of interest that I mentioned only occurs for a small number (if any) of geologists, but I still have lingering suspicions. I didn't mean to demean geology as a valid science, and I know that their contributions to our wealth of knowledge are great.

Geology, as a valid science, has many peer-reviewed journals. Are you aware of any such reliable source in geology that contradicts the National Academies' conclusions? My research has yielded no conflicts from the following:

in a chaotic system, such as the earth’s climate, an abrupt climate change always could occur. Howe...

You may be right, and perhaps the conflict of interest that I mentioned only occurs for a small number (if any) of geologists, but I still have lingering suspicions. I didn't mean to demean geology as a valid science, and I know that their contributions to our wealth of knowledge are great.

Geology, as a valid science, has many peer-reviewed journals. Are you aware of any such reliable source in geology that contradicts the National Academies' conclusions? My research has yielded no conflicts from the following:

in a chaotic system, such as the earth’s climate, an abrupt climate change always could occur. However, existence of a forcing greatly increases the number of possible mechanisms. Furthermore, the more rapid the forcing, the more likely it is that the resulting change will be abrupt on the time scale of human economies or global ecosystems. . . .

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere and causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. It is now the consensus of the science community that the changes observed over the last several decades are most likely in significant part the result of human activities and that human-induced warming is expected to continue (NRC, 2001). As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the abrupt climate changes of the past were especially prominent when orbital processes were forcing the climate to change most rapidly during the cooling into and warming out of the ice age, consistent with the results from modeling that forcing of climate increases the possibility of crossing thresholds that trigger abrupt change (e.g., Boxes 3.1 and 4.1).

A bunch of people's names who apparently say there is no consensus, without any actual argument to the merits of my claim, is a mere appeal to authority. You might as well have just said, "nu-uh." I asked for a peer-reviewed report in a scientific publication that disputes the consensus of arguments presented by the IPCC, the National Academies, the NOAA, the National Research Council, and every article I have found in journals like Science and Nature.

I could debunk the meteorologist's claims in the Wall Street Journal editorial point-by-point, but that has been done to death. ...

A bunch of people's names who apparently say there is no consensus, without any actual argument to the merits of my claim, is a mere appeal to authority. You might as well have just said, "nu-uh." I asked for a peer-reviewed report in a scientific publication that disputes the consensus of arguments presented by the IPCC, the National Academies, the NOAA, the National Research Council, and every article I have found in journals like Science and Nature.

I could debunk the meteorologist's claims in the Wall Street Journal editorial point-by-point, but that has been done to death. Here is one well-written example. If there is any particular claim he makes against the consensus that you find compelling, post it here and I can likely demonstrate why it's false.

What did you show me? I did not find there a fact, just the same verbiage on ice melting and sea level rise threat.

Even Lindzen no longer questions that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.

As there is no doubt that CO2 is green-house gas, no doubt it contributes to warming. But how much, among other more powerful controls that we don't have reliable quantative science about- that is the question.

What does he know about real mechanisms of sea regressions and transgressions? Modern science can only describe the phenomena reading outcrops and well-logs.But his claim on climate forecasts stroke me down. Ther rudimentary models does not explain temperature beha...

What did you show me? I did not find there a fact, just the same verbiage on ice melting and sea level rise threat.

Even Lindzen no longer questions that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.

As there is no doubt that CO2 is green-house gas, no doubt it contributes to warming. But how much, among other more powerful controls that we don't have reliable quantative science about- that is the question.

What does he know about real mechanisms of sea regressions and transgressions? Modern science can only describe the phenomena reading outcrops and well-logs.But his claim on climate forecasts stroke me down. Ther rudimentary models does not explain temperature behavior in the past. Sow what is the predictability of the models?
Could you please, buches, give me one example of successful forecast of any global process that is one of numerous constituents of climate?

Sorry, guys, I interrupted your conversation. It was not hard to confuse one clip with another because of the same topic, consensus.

I don't mean every single person in the world

No, Buches, you are boggling. You know for sure that there are a lot of single persons who contributed to climate science significantly, like prof Lindzen. I mean numerous physicists, chemists, geologists, hydrologists, mathematicians. And your filtration (climatologist-nonclimatologist) is not relevant with respect to such a complex area of knowledge like climate science.
You are likely also know that principle of majority in science (and not only) does not work. A perfect support to this is the ...

Sorry, guys, I interrupted your conversation. It was not hard to confuse one clip with another because of the same topic, consensus.

I don't mean every single person in the world

No, Buches, you are boggling. You know for sure that there are a lot of single persons who contributed to climate science significantly, like prof Lindzen. I mean numerous physicists, chemists, geologists, hydrologists, mathematicians. And your filtration (climatologist-nonclimatologist) is not relevant with respect to such a complex area of knowledge like climate science.
You are likely also know that principle of majority in science (and not only) does not work. A perfect support to this is the example of genetics in Stalin's USSR. It was perfect consensus against single, but much more prominent than the rest of othres, scientist Dr. Vavilov.

My more than 20 year research in geology showed me there is no cosensus on any basic issues in Geology. Despite hundred thousand wells drilled there is no consensensus on oil origin. We even still do not know if the amount of water on the Earth is constant or varies because of the mantle-crust-ocean interaction. And what next news on sea level change can I find in IPCC report or peer-reviewed papers on sea level rise. It is just ridiculous.

Buches, let's return to

Geology, as a valid science, has many peer-reviewed journals. Are you aware of any such reliable source in geology that contradicts the National Academies' conclusions?

Contradicts and in such a big way.
Geological and paleclimate data do not provide us with reliable estimations of green-house effect of CO2. The reason is probably that this effect too small in magnitude to be detected among significantly more powerful effects, for example, water vapor dynamics, ocean dynamics, unstablle rates of earth degassing, El-Nino, solar activity changes, orbital fluctuations.
So far geolodical and paleoclimate data confirmed the opposite phenomenon, namely, t...

Buches, let's return to

Geology, as a valid science, has many peer-reviewed journals. Are you aware of any such reliable source in geology that contradicts the National Academies' conclusions?

Contradicts and in such a big way.
Geological and paleclimate data do not provide us with reliable estimations of green-house effect of CO2. The reason is probably that this effect too small in magnitude to be detected among significantly more powerful effects, for example, water vapor dynamics, ocean dynamics, unstablle rates of earth degassing, El-Nino, solar activity changes, orbital fluctuations.
So far geolodical and paleoclimate data confirmed the opposite phenomenon, namely, temperature changes predates CO2 changes in the atmosphere. It is still unclear how could IPCC scientists estimate effect CO2 in temperature without due knowledge of numerous feedbacks.

But main contradiction is that they excluded geological factors from their models at all. See, for example, the paper
to better understand real budget of CH4, very efficient green-house gas.

the probability of an abrupt climate change

Buches, please don't use this ambiguos terminology - abrupt climate change or give a definition of it. If you are in consensus with paleclimate knowledge you should understand that it is impossible to define what normal and what anbnormal stage is. In the light of previuos catastrophical changes of climate, chance is that a catastrophy will occur again without any human help. Current rise of 0.5-0.6 degrees C per century seems to be a background stage, and no ground for alarmism. If we take into consideration the scientific fact that our planet resided mostly in ice conditions for last 500,000 years, we should be afraid of cooling an...

the probability of an abrupt climate change

Buches, please don't use this ambiguos terminology - abrupt climate change or give a definition of it. If you are in consensus with paleclimate knowledge you should understand that it is impossible to define what normal and what anbnormal stage is. In the light of previuos catastrophical changes of climate, chance is that a catastrophy will occur again without any human help. Current rise of 0.5-0.6 degrees C per century seems to be a background stage, and no ground for alarmism. If we take into consideration the scientific fact that our planet resided mostly in ice conditions for last 500,000 years, we should be afraid of cooling and freezing more than warming (graph.)